Federalist 62

"A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained. Some governments are deficient in both these qualities; most governments are deficient in the first. I scruple not to assert, that in American governments too little attention has been paid to the last. The federal Constitution avoids this error; and what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in a mode which increases the security for the first."

I'm thinking maybe it didn't work because I don't think the federal government has either.

"The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions.
To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable government would fill a volume. I will hint a few only, each of which will be perceived to be a source of innumerable others.
In the first place, it forfeits the respect and confidence of other nations, and all the advantages connected with national character. An individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once, by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly. His more friendly neighbors may pity him, but all will decline to connect their fortunes with his; and not a few will seize the opportunity of making their fortunes out of his. One nation is to another what one individual is to another; with this melancholy distinction perhaps, that the former, with fewer of the benevolent emotions than the latter, are under fewer restraints also from taking undue advantage from the indiscretions of each other. Every nation, consequently, whose affairs betray a want of wisdom and stability, may calculate on every loss which can be sustained from the more systematic policy of their wiser neighbors. But the best instruction on this subject is unhappily conveyed to America by the example of her own situation. She finds that she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that she is a prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs."

There's your problem! Ill made laws and the changes to fix them, only show other countries that we don't really know what we are doing. And not only that, Madison goes on to say why it is not good for our own people that we do this. Business people cannot make plans to spend and invest their money. Farmers cannot plant crops. And inventors cannot create. No one knows what will be legal next year, or how much it cost them in taxes. No one can make any intelligent decisions about their future when anything and everything can change in the next congressional session. Sound familiar? Yep! What's going on in our country is not new. The only thing new, in my opinion, is that there is increased ignorance on the people's part about history, government, and economics. And that only leads to the increased influence of tyrants.

Finished Another Book Today

It's amazing how much you actually use the tip of your right thumb! I cut it bad yesterday trying to open a latch at Tom's baseball game yesterday. Score keeping can be dangerous! Well...for me anyway.

I finished reading "Easy Lessons on the Constitution" this morning. It's a great little book, but it was written in 1891, so some of the questions are a little dated. It does give a pretty good explanation of how our Constitution works and it's written for kids, so it's right up my alley! I'm thinking most adults today would have trouble keeping up with this book though. And I know they don't teach any of this in depth in our modern high schools, which is a sad state of affairs really. How do we keep our liberty if so few understand how our system is supposed to work?

One quote for you from the very end of the book. "These lessons have failed entirely of their purpose if they have not excited a desire to know much more of our system of government and to become better prepared to assume these responsibilities. If the great experiment in free government now trying in our country is to be successful, the masses of her citizens must be intelligent as well as virtuous. They must understand her institutions and glory in their citizenship."

I don't think the book failed. I want more and I want to do more.

Federalist #48

If you have never read the Federalist Papers, you should. They are not hard to read really. I'm not saying they are light or easy, but they are a wealth of information and give you a sense of perspective. Many of the arguments that you hear on the news and in papers are the same ones our country has been hearing 200 years ago.

So #47 was pointing out that the three branches of government cannot be effective at all if they are completely separate and autonomous. This one, #48, points out why and specifically talks about the judiciary branch. Here are two quotes that will make you think.

Regarding Virginia and its constitution, "A great number of laws had been passed, violating the rule requiring that all bills of a public nature shall be previously printed for the consideration of the people." Sound familiar? That's in our Federal Constitution as well and has been effectively kept as a rule until recently. You would think it would be easier to have the bills printed and read by the people in this day. It is written that way so that we know how to influence our representatives to vote. But our population has been so dumbed down and cowed that we can't understand why we need to read them. And our bills are purposely being written lengthy and confusing so that we will give up on it and let the professionals handle it. If I were my areas representative, I'm thinking that if I can't read the bill and understand it, I'm voting no until it is written in a concise and clear manner.

Another one, in regard to a large body of legislators, "being at once exempt from the restraint of an individual responsibility for the acts of the body, and deriving confidence from mutual example and joint influence, unauthorised measures would, of course, be more freely hazarded than where the executive department is administered by a single hand, or by a few hands." Mob mentality? It's much easier to do wrong things in a group. You are less likely to be punished for your indiscretion.

Electoral College

No, it's not somewhere you go!

So, today's page of Easy Lesson on the Constitution was about the Electoral College. I'm so confused. The Constitution says this:

Article 2, Section1, Clause 2
"Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."

Why would we not just let the people vote for president? Because states with very small populations would not have any voice in the election. Small states have at least three votes in the Electoral College system.

But! The States choose the electors and tell them how to vote. Not sure how that is just yet. I'm working on it. But California gives all 55 of its votes to the winner of the popular election. I'm not really sure how that is right though. If 55% votes for one candidate and 45% votes for another, the electoral votes are not split up accordingly, they are all given to the majority winner. Hmm...

There is a call to get rid of the Electoral College all together, but I'm thinking that the guys that came up with the system had a lot more historical/philosophical knowledge than all of our current Congress combined, so until one of them can come up with a sound reason why it was made up in the first place and how human nature and history have changed so much in the last few years that we have to throw it out and go with another system, I'm not even going to consider it.

Shouldn't everyone be doing this?

I don't consider myself an expert, or even aspire to be an expert, on our system of government or economics. I do love history, but even on that I only hope to be moderately knowledgeable. My point is that I'm trying to have a basic understanding of these things so that I can participate in the world instead of sitting on the sidelines and letting life happen to me. I wish I could have gotten that basic knowledge earlier, say at school where they say that is what it is for. I really wish everyone in our country would have this working knowledge. Maybe things would be even better for our country and the economy. I believe that was what the founding fathers were attempting to create, a country with an educated population that would actively live life, protect freedom, and pursue their own happiness.

Once someone asked me what my schools graduation requirements would be. As a private school in California, I am supposed to create my own. I think this is what it will be. My students must show, in writing and speech, that they understand the basic workings of Austrian AND Keynesian economics, the history of different types of government, and the background of our country's founding and constitution. A voting citizen NEEDS to understand how our government works and why it was set up the way it is. It's not a matter of whether or not you like history, economics, or government. It wouldn't matter if we had a king or dictator. But if you like having choices to make and the freedom to live the way you wish, you better know how or someone will take it from you.

Learn it or lose it! It's not rocket science. If it were, our founding fathers would not have expected farmers and merchants to understand and use it.

Constitution 101 - Week 3

Just finished the listening to the lecture from Week 3 of Hillsdale College's FREE Constitution 101 class. It's title was "The Problem of Majority Tyranny". I can't help but relate what our Constitution says and the founding of our country to the problems I see in our country today.

Madison talked about "factions" large and small. A faction can take control of our government and wield power over the rest of the country. When you think of factions though, you probably think of a small group that somehow grabs power and controls everyone else. But it can be the majority as well, consider slavery. But our constitution attempts to control majority rule as well, to protect the minority from the abuses of the masses.

I have often heard people complain that a new law is "what the people want".  Or that our government cannot serve the people if it doesn't do what the majority has voted to do. But think on this. What about the minority? What that undeclared war? What if I don't want my son drafted into a military that is fighting for something that I don't believe in? You know, the draft still exists. We just aren't using it. But your son still has to register. Draft! The ultimate offence to liberty.

My questions today.
Why were the Federalist papers published anonymously? When the people were reading them in their newspapers and pamphlets, did they know that the authors were part of the group writing and discussing the new constitution? Did you know there were ANTI-Federalist papers? And that in them, all many of the problems we are having now in our own time were foreseen?

I'm reading Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card again, and it it two characters write in all the debates, chat rooms, and blogs (equivalent of newspapers) to influence the people to start a war and change the world government. They are brilliant children, posing as adults, and one of them wants to rule this new world. It sounded like the Federalist papers to me. I don't consider those, or the anti-federalist papers, to be malicious, only a way to get people to think about the ideas they were presenting. But in Ender's Game, I'm getting the vibe of meanness. That Peter is doing this to get control of people's mind. I can see, however, how people today could think of our founding as a similar situation. Lot's to think about. And so much more to learn.

Constitution Study

So, I'm reading my "Easy Lessons on the Constitution" and the point they are making in part of this chapter is why the Capitol of the United States in in a district not associated with any state. The reason being that the states argued over which state should have the honor of being the home of the seat of our government. Which state should have that priviledge? I'm looking into the debate about that right now and I first go to D.C.'s website which has a link to "DC Statehood". So even D.C. itself doesn't know why it was so important to not be within the bounds of a state.

This continues my belief that we, as a country, have become illiterate in our own founding. There is so much work to do.

Here are two links to get you started.
http://technidigm.org/cons_dc.htm
http://dc.gov/DC/Government/Data+&+Transparency/DC+Statehood

Ahh...Discussion Questions

This one comes from Week 2 of my Constitution 101 class at Hillsdale College.

"Why is education necessary for the existence of a free government? What kind of education is required for a free society?"

It's kind of obvious that education is "necessary", but a particular kind of education is required. It's not just the ability to read and write that is needed in a free society, it is an education that requires the individual to think beyond himself and his immediate needs. Logic, history, and philosophy should be a huge part of it.

Imagine if, instead of our current system of compulsory education, it was the parents' responsibility to get the children to a particular level of learning. They were in charge of the children's core and love of learning stages, as the Thomas Jefferson Education people put it. This can happen at any age. It would be up to the parents how they could get that child there, be it a school or at home, early or late. Then around high school age, when young adults are really open to new learning and study (if their core and love of learning has been nurtured) they test to attend a high school where they begin to learn the real founding of our system of government, where it came from, who the Founders studied, etc. They learn history, rhetoric, and logic to the point where they can make informed decisions about laws and elected leaders. This would be something each student would work through with a mentor, at their own pace, to get to a place that the student and mentor have agreed upon at the beginning. And you can't vote until you have proven that you have this basic understanding.

I'm dreaming. I'm seeing this begin in my oldest son, but people don't believe me. He has begun to have enough play and is setting his sights higher. He behaves well in public because he is respected at home not bullied and directed.

I think we set our kids in these public institutions which cram them and bore them to death with reading, writing, and arithmetic. They are so bored and dumbed down and defeated by the time they get to high school that all they want to do is escape. When they finally do, they flee from any kind of learning at all, leave the running of the country to those who are ambitious enough to take control and sit back and beg for someone to take care of them.

I'm just now starting to love learning again after all the schools did. I'm finally learning some of what I should have been deep in studying from the start. And I didn't do poorly in school. I did pretty darn well actually. But it never prepared me to make an educated vote. I didn't learn about our economy, our system of government, or why either are important. I just learned who the authority was and to respect it. By the time I left high school, I believed I was done. I had jumped the hoops and was ready to join the work force, never to think again. That isn't how our country works though.

Our republican style of government sets us free to govern ourselves. If we don't understand that, we can't vote to keep it. We can't expect someone else to guard our freedoms. They are unalienable rights, but we give them up voluntarily when we refuse to understand our history, use our logic and reason, and know what our priorities are.

Week One of Hillsdale College's "Constitution 101"

Please forgive my "stream of consciousness" style of writing. I've got to get these ideas out, but haven't had the discipline to create a coherent essay just yet.

My favorite part of this week's reading was from Calvin Coolidge in 1926 about the Declaration of Independence.

"It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions."

I'm also going through "Easy Lessons on the Constitution". Our Constitution is supposed to be simple. Our laws are not supposed to be so long and confusing so that only a specialist can understand them. The idea was that an educated and independent population could rule itself.

How can a population continue these ideals if it is not thoroughly educated in how these documents were created and how it operates? Why is it that now, when I'm almost 40 years old, I'm just sitting down to learn this? How can a person make an educated decision about how to vote if they are completely unaware of how the system works and why?

Oh! And there was a question from a viewer (of the class) that asked if these ideas of liberty and freedom are so natural why didn't they just explode across the middle east when we invaded them. My answer is that you can't spread these ideas by force. It has to come from within. If another country had come to the colonies and told the founding fathers that King George was a tyrant and we had to overthrow him and start our own democracy, the ideas would not have taken hold either. It has to filter in through the people and they have to take the responsibility.

Man, that's completely wild. I really need to work on writing an essay to get my point across. Ugg..more work to do.